SlackerInc

​

I take exception to your characterisation. I think I understand them just fine*, but simply believe a race where the competitors initially abhor the lead needs rules changes, just like basketball did (another game I understand just fine).

I notice btw that the longer track running events (5000m, 10000m) in the Olympics also suffer from a subtler version of this problem, with a pack running together and then making a break for it at the end--result being that records are not often broken or even approached. Again, then, they may as well just eliminate the portion of the event during which no one ever tries to make a move! Much more exciting are events like the 4x100, in which the Jamaican team just smashed a world record while in the same race the U.S. team tied the previous WR.

It's simple, really: for the vast majority of sports fans, it's much more enjoyable to watch a race in which the racers start off with their best effort, and continue it throughout. You're entitled to enjoy a different kind of race, just as I'm entitled not to. But don't fool yourself that if I or the vast majority I referred to only "understood" the match sprint better, we'd be enthralled. There's just not that much to understand. American football is an example of a sport that is truly complex and requires a steep learning curve to really "get". But c'mon: two guys on bikes racing around an oval? Only so complex that can be (although the track stand stuff does admittedly make it a little more complex than it might otherwise be, it's not in a good way when most people will just laugh at the sight of it).

*Note as proof of my understanding that without ever having seen it happen, I theorised that a potentially winning tactic could be to make a surprise move right at the beginning; and I was rewarded with a video (thanks, Dalai) which proved this hunch correct.

GENESTARWIND

gaaaaahh....

striknein

TIL,

We only need three track events: Six Day, Individual Pursuit, and Scratch. Everything else is a waste of spectators' time.

bitingduck

You'll have to change the laws of physics then. Any human powered event where wind resistance will cause a measurable performance difference and the rules allow drafting will result in such tactics. The shorter track and field events don't have this element because they're time trials-- while they may be run at the same time, everyone is confined to their own lanes and there's no element of drafting.

That would be an incorrect statement. There are a great many american sports fans who understand that you don't want to spend the whole race out front-- NASCAR was for a time the most popular sport in the US, and I would suspect that most fans understand that there are significant and valid reasons why a driver doesn't want to be in front the whole race. If you stay out front burning gas you have to gain enough of a lead to afford the time lost in an extra pit. Mass start racing is a different animal than time trialing (i.e. drag racing) and is interesting to many people *because* of the tactics. It's even more interesting when it's 24 guys racing their bikes around an oval, and you throw in elements of prisoner's dilemma. Or 36 and they're racing as 18 tag-teams...

The Miss and Out is another race where you generally don't want to be near the front until the last 5-7 laps or so, but it's extremely popular with crowds. There's lots of suspense and tension, but unless you know the riders really well, you can't tell who's winning until very close to the end. It's a race where tactical ability far outweighs speed.

It's all about crossing the line first after they ring the bell, not getting the fastest time. If it were about the fastest time it would be a TT, and they could stop after the flying 200. It's really more an issue of taste in sports. You don't seem to have interest in races that have game elements. Many people do.

We should talk about sailboat racing next. Lots of people seem to watch the America's Cup races where you can't even tell who's leading much of the time.

chasm54

It's simple, really. For the vast majority of people who can read, it's much more enjoyable to stick to comic books than to bother with great literature. So presumably Tolstoy was wasting his time and should have done something less elitist instead.

What you are proposing is a recipe for monotony and repetition. If that's what floats your boat, great. But allow those of us with more sophisticated tastes to have fun, too?

JesusBananas

HA!

hahahahahahaha

You're a troll. Go away.

Kayce

Comics can be great literature, just as much as novels can.

MarkWW

yeah, not so much.

carleton

I'm gonna lock this.